But then, shooting on a D7000 means I have plenty of pixels to edit out if I need to. Even my humble backup cam (a D3000) has enough pixels for most (but not all) of my usual edits to end up good enough for the intended use.

As to printing, can you explain more about what you mean exactly as I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean editing scans of already printed photos in something like Photoshop?

I think what he means is when you edit your pictures and crop them, do you try to maintain the original aspect ratio, stick with a standard print size (4x6, 5x9, 8x10), or do you just free crop and not worry about the aspect ratio? I'm guessing the main question there is if you free crop, how does this affect your prints? I've wondered the same thing since I haven't done a lot of printing. I try to maintain the original aspect ratio, but have changed some of mine to 8x10 if it fit better. As much as I would like to free crop everything to get lines exactly where I want them, I prefer to maintain standard-sized images so that I have a uniform size for posting in albums online and am kind of afraid problems printing later if I free crop (or the need for custom frames, etc).

alchse said:
what if I want a square print? do they just print on the next larger standard aspect ratio size with white space taking up the remaining space?
if so...does it hurt the longevity to chop the dead space?
Then do you find it difficult to find it difficult to frame / mount these oddly shaped photos or can you pretty much custom order frames for a reasonable price nowadays?

I generally stick to 4x6 & 8x10s but I do make a lot of 6x6 format. I actually do a lot of 9x16s for display on TVs.

Yes printers leave the white unless you specify for them to trim it which is the same for many odd sizes. I have a friend with a full mat cutting set-up so framing is easy for me. If you hire this stuff out, it will cost you for sure and can get expensive very fast. For web and net sharing, I don't think the crop factor is an issue at all.

I guess a lot will shout to me here, but I almost don't crop my photos :)

When composing my frame, I try to do my best (maybe from the film days I have this habit), that is the reason that I may not need to crop.

On killer photos, (the ones you want to make a "wow" photo) cropping is almost mandatory, and cropping aspect ratio depends on the target (where you will be using the photo), usually I stick to the traditional 3x2 aspect ratio, but for some photos, also 16x9 (widescreen desktop photos), On some occasions I use other aspect ratios when required.

In my case I try to stick to standard sizes, including panoramic size like 9x16 and square, but sometimes I let myself to go free and use a crop factor that gets the most out of the picture, although in 80% I prefer the traditional 3x2 factor.

VelocityStop said:
I think what he means is [...] I'm guessing the main question there is if you free crop, how does this affect your prints?

If that is the question, then as I do my own printing, if the image doesn't exactly fit as I have used free cropping, then it gets made with the white edges and cut down (if needed) to fit onto a mat or in a frame as required.

In the papers it was columns, in paper it is frames, in localities those things change, but there are standard sizes.

Anything out of that standard, you are the "Long Ranger". You have to work alone at what you do.

Make your frames yourself.

You earn your chops, and if you succeed, well good on you, but if you don't, well...

There's no support system for you.

This is one place where it pays attention to have heard well the advice 'to color in the lines'. ;-)

The art guys will tell you that is part of their gig, and there is some value added, (xx% of the cost of their project was in the framing of the art) and there's some truth to it, but then you are really in the framing business, too.

To me I don't think the pic really have to be a standard size. I would just print it larger in the next standard size and either use a different size custom mat or leave the white space in the frame. Another option is a clear "floating" picture frame. Just take the white are off and center the pic in the frame. Where the mat would be is now just clear, but you can really put any size pic smaller then the frame in there. Just an idea though. Obviously easiest is to use a standard size.

For me, it depends on what I am doing. For most electronic work (eg. flickr, or sending a dvd to someone) I will crop to whatever aspect ratio best fits the picture. I don't worry about constraints, but much of what I do happens to be close to 4:3 to 4:5- it's a nice aspect ratio.

Even if I'm making prints, I will use custom sizes- I just pad it with a white border (which I need anyway when framing it) to make it the standard size. I don't like the precut mattes that are available (many of them are not archival, and many of them are overpriced) so cutting them myself is not an issue. The only think I worry about is tall vertical images that are thin- these are hard to make look good in a standard frame, since the narrow top/bottom spacing never looks good.

There's only a few exceptions to this: if I'm making a slide show, I will tend to prefer horizontals, since it makes transitions easier. Also, if I'm making a book or a print collection, I need to make the aspect ratios match each other (matching doesn't necessarily mean the same).

I'll say this though, using standard ratios makes many tasks easier. Most images will fit in one standard sizes or another with a little bit of cropping, and this doesn't usually do anything bad to the image if you watch what you are doing. Letting the computer crop for you is not usually the best.

Yes good point on distortion Nikodoby. The image will not look right once you start messing around with odd sizes. However, you should crop to whatever you think works for the composition as bjrichus states. For news print there are strict guidelines to follow so that you don't get distortion and the black bars Nikodoby mentions. Usually you can tell with your "gut" if the image looks alright after cropping especially in photoshop.

I don't print anything so I crop to whatever looks good, though I usually start with a standard size and go from there.

I like creative cropping and wide aspect ratios so I crop almost all my photos. I also have a bad habit of not being careful enough about in camera framing. I'm trying to get better at this but it's hard when I have to take a shot quickly and there are no focus points where I want.

I free crop photos that I am going to have around my house or mount/frame and sell because I can either get the extra cost back in the price or its on my wall for my enjoyment. If the photos are for a client I crop to the sizes they want. If they are going to use them at a certain size thats where I will try to compose when capturing the images. I am really fond of the square print though. Neat idea about the floating frame, I might try that out.
~Cheers

I mostly stick to 4x6 ad 8x10 aspect ratio. Some times I do 8x11 for a little bit wider. If you do lots of prints then you might want to crop to a specific aspect ratio to the print you want other wise for web it don't really matter.

While I seldom crop, usually I will crop to either 8x10 (4x5), square, or 8x12 (4x6/sensor aspect/the one I use the most). For pans, artsy stuff, and some web work the crop will suit the composition as it is neither going to be printed or will be custom framed...

My moto stuff is the only stuff I frequently crop (shoot wider to compensate for problems) and it is always to 4x6 or square crops...